ipt_delete_source

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation writes to the IPT and that mappings are a prerequisite, but it does not state that deletion is destructive, irreversible, gated by confirm, or what happens to related data. Partial disclosure only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with a front-loaded write indicator and a meaningful precondition. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of schema data or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter mutation, the description plus schema is arguably callable: required params are present and confirm's gate is documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the destructive/permanent nature and any guidance on invalid states, leaving meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the schema already describes confirm and shortname. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying 'a source' as the deletion target, leaving the source parameter's semantics to be inferred from the tool name. Acceptable but not compensatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the verb ('Delete'), the resource ('a source'), and adds the key constraint that mappings must be removed first. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ipt_delete_mapping or ipt_delete_resource beyond the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical gives an important precondition—mappings must already be removed—which implies ordering relative to ipt_delete_mapping, but it never states when this tool should be selected over alternative deletion tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.